 do have one opening on the board. Tonight, we have a number of items on the agenda. First, however, before we get to the agenda, I'll turn it over to staff to give Zoom instructions. Good evening, everyone. Please take a moment to name yourself correctly if you're on Zoom. You can do this by clicking the participants' button at the bottom of the Zoom toolbar. That'll bring up a side window listing all the participants in the meeting. You can then hover over your own name, click Rename, and then you'll be able to type away to tell everyone who you are. Alternatively, you can message me in the chat, I'm Simon Miles, and I will rename you. I've got quite a lot of people in person here, so just a reminder, if you are following along on your phone or laptop, please keep your microphone, camera, and speaker off so that we don't get any feedback with the AV system. For those of you on Zoom, the Zoom toolbar has a range of functions along the bottom of the screen. You have the mute button, which turns your mic on and off. Please keep yourself muted, unless you're speaking. We have the stop video button. That turns your camera on and off. Camera is optional. We have the chat button, which you can use to message me if you would like to speak, or you're having technical problems. Please don't give any testimony on any of the items in the chat. When we do get to the public testimony portion, you can use the reactions button to raise your hand. If you click it, it'll give you a menu. One of those is a waving hand, and we'll call on you at the time to speak your comments. And if you are on your telephone, you can use star nine to raise your hand and star six to mute and unmute. We're going to be using screen share today so that everyone can see the same documents that we're looking at. We do recommend that you use side-by-side mode. This enables you to both look at the document and see the video of the person who's sharing. Normally Zoom will default to this, but if it doesn't, you can click the view options next to the green rectangle or the top of your screen. Slide down and then click side-by-side. You can also click and drag that vertical slider there to adjust the size of the respective screens. And lastly, if you're on Zoom and you've got a bad internet connection, you can try a number of things. You can turn off your video. You can close browser tabs that you aren't using or other computer programs. Or as the last resort, you can use your telephone as a speaker. You do this by clicking the little up arrow next to the mute on mute button, clicking leave computer audio, and then dialing back into the meeting. Thank you, Simon. Okay, first on the agenda is the public forum portion. This is an opportunity for anyone participating either at Town Hall or by Zoom to comment on anything that is not on tonight's agenda. So this is the public forum opportunity to address the board on items not on tonight's agenda. If you would like to address the board, please raise your virtual hand or if you're present in the room, indicate to staff that you would like to speak. We've got no raised hands here in the room or on Zoom. Okay, great. Okay, let's transition to the public hearing portion. We have three items on tonight's agenda, HP 22-05, which is a certificate of appropriateness for 7921 Wilson Road. We also have DP 21-18, which is the Snyder Group. That's the Essex Alliance Church property redevelopment. And then we have DP 22-10, which is JC Properties LLC. That's for a 5,000 square foot office building, a new office building to be located at 478 Blair Park in the Business Park Zoning District. So first up is HP 22-05, which is a certificate of appropriateness. Staff goes first. We have the Wilson staff member who is reading this. That'll be me and the applicant is in the room. Thank you. Go ahead, Emily. All right, so this is a request for a certificate of appropriateness to replace the windows, replace the roof at 7921 Wilson Road. This property is located in the National Register Historic District within the Village Zoning District. It is an 1840s Greek revival house with an estimated 1920s Greek queen and porch, and also has a more modern addition to the rear as well as a historic barn. In February, this property received approval for a change of use and a sign. It's going to be an orthodontist office. It also has prior site plan approval for parking, dumpster and closure because it was a restaurant. All of its review in the past to be a commercial use. Tonight is really focused on the historic elements of the building. And tonight's focus is on the roof and the windows. The HAC made the recommendation to approve real or synthetic slate for the roof on the 1840s portion of the house. The roof on the rear additions are not being considered tonight. They are all slate as well. But tonight's focus for the roof is just that main historic portion that faces the street. And the second element is looking at the windows in that historic portion of the home. The HAC recommended to allow the window replacement. And more information is needed in the future on the front door, the front porch and some heat pumps that will come back to the DRB at a future date. The applicant did provide a rendering for the front porch. In essence, it's going to retain the queen and look, but shrink in size and width so that the shutters can be restored on the building. Right now that front porch covers the sides of the windows where you can't have the shutters. The appendix H design guidelines are fairly vague and they don't provide specific material standards. It says, do not obscure original materials. Do not alter the shape of original openings like doors or windows. Respect the original character and period of the building, structure or landmark. Do not try to make it look historically older than it is, but do not try to modernize it either. I'll quickly go to some photos. So on the lower left is the existing house. That main portion of the roof is slate and what's being proposed to change. The porch is asphalt shingles, and you can see the upper photos are the rear barn slate roofs that are not being proposed to change. There are other alternatives that were considered like asphalt shingles, standing seam metal, the hack recommended real or synthetic slate. The chimney will remain as is on the property, the chimney on the eastern side. The hack recommended allowing aluminum replacement windows with casings and six over six exterior muntin patterns. The upper windows will be casement for egress. They said that is acceptable, but they're preferred on the west side, which is the side that faces the old brick church where they'd be minimally visible. Currently the windows are six over one pattern. Some of them have wavy glass, their wooden true divided light windows, and they would be removed and replaced. The shutters, so many of the shutters are missing on the property. They're proposing to restore the shutters, and they would be a dark green to match the modern windows at the rear of the building. This photo shows those original windows where the shutter brackets are along the trim. The hack recommended that the shutters stay on the window trim and not be located on the brick. And the front porch tonight, it's not for the DRB to make a final decision. It will have to go back through the hack. This was the original concept that they proposed. And if I can find it, I can the revision to the application for the front porch. Let me pull it up. So this is the proposed front porch. It retains the Queen Anne style with the upper lintel pattern, cornice pattern, and the railings with the banisters. It would just be narrower so as to not overlap with the window. And then there's some elements like adding an entry canopy over the primary customer client entrance. So the orthodontist office will be entered from the rear. That's where the waiting room will be. The front door will not be used as part of the business operations. And then some other minor parts of the application adding a screening lattice around the dumpster enclosure and then some of the HVAC equipment on the side. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Emily. Emily, you and I had a conversation the other day about some forthcoming changes that are in the works in terms of defining historically appropriate materials and to make these discussions less vague. Can you please update everyone on what is in the works and what the objective is for that, please? Yeah. So the Planning Commission and the HAC, the Historic and Architectural Advisory Committee are working on a bylaw revision for the Village Zoning District. Right now we're in the public input phase of review. So if folks go to willistonvillagevt.us, there's a guided tour and survey questions. One element of this proposed bylaw revision is having a clearly defined list of materials. So this bylaw is not what the DRB would be administering tonight for this application, but in the future it would provide more clarity and more guidance on when must slate be retained, when must windows be retained, and if they do change what are the acceptable materials, as well as more clarity on other site design for new buildings, new additions to right size new structures to the Village. So we're in the public input phase of review. Everybody in this room is welcome to participate, and we anticipate the Planning Commission to have hearings on that revision this fall and maybe have adoption later this year. Thank you. Thanks, Emily. What history do we have in Williston or in Chittenden County about the use of synthetic slate roof? To my knowledge, it's not been used in Williston's historic district or Williston in general, and I'm not familiar of its use elsewhere in Chittenden County. I did reach out to Caitlin Corkins at the state who administers the state and federal tax grants, and she wasn't able to provide any insight on it. It's a relatively new material to the market. Okay. And I apologize for my lack of visibility. Applicant Jeff is present. You're welcome to come up to the table to speak as well. Welcome. If both of you would state your name and address for the record, please. Address? Like my home address or office address? Business address. Our main office is located at 55 San Remo in South Burlington, Vermont. I'm Zach LaBrizzi and everything Jeff said. Welcome. If the two of you could give the board some background on synthetic slate and why you're proposing that material where it's been used locally and try to give us a level of confidence that this will look like a historic product on a historic house. I think the... I don't have a lot of examples off the top of my mind in terms of where synthetic slate has been used locally. I think the product has been around for about a decade. The real reason we're proposing or we would like to use synthetic slate over regular slate is just weight. We are going to be taking off the underlayment of the roof and putting in new plywood and new ridgeline support and new trust system the best we can, but it still is... Slate is extremely heavy and even with our best efforts, I think we'll end up with a roof that is sagging 20 years from now if we're using a heavy, heavy product. Our preference actually would have been standing seam, but the hack didn't really... They really either wanted synthetic slate or regular slate. Mr. Hemmelgarn, do you have any experience with synthetic slate? Just what I looked up online this afternoon. It's a problem. Which is consistent with what I just heard here this evening. So no, I do not. I can corroborate that the real slate is very heavy. Yes. Yes, that's a good one. $200, $2,000 per square. Okay, DRB members, questions. Have you looked... It sounds like you're pulling the sheathing off of the roof so it's going to be open to the weather at some point and you're going to be sistering some joists and whatnot in there. Is there a reason you wouldn't just put in adequate support with the new structure to support the... The real reason is so we don't have to... We don't want to touch any of the outside trim of the building so everything we're sistering in is going to just be from the brick to the new ridge line support. And the width of the current truss systems vary quite a bit and so we'll have to... We'll have to more than just sister in some of the trusses in order to get some 8-foot lengths for plywood consistency more than anything else. So it's more a matter of... I think we're going to do the best we can without trying to touch the outside envelope, I don't know. So in your... The report here seems to say indicate that the synthetic slate is actually more expensive than the real slate. That was what we had come up with when we had found our estimates. But that was about four months ago and everything obviously has changed as the world has changed so last time when we met with one of the hack individuals he also was a past builder and he did some research and he was supposed to get it to us which we hadn't heard yet but he thought it was a little less than traditional slate. What I looked... I mean again I just looked on one or two sites this afternoon and that was purported to be one of the advantages of the synthetic slate is that it has a lower cost than slate so I was surprised to see that. Right and again that was when we did our estimates and it was probably three months ago when we reached out and probably took a month and a half to hear back from one person for an estimate so we're not fully... It's not fully vetted yet but from what I also understand is from the road it's at least in talking to the synthetic slate people it's nearly impossible to tell the difference between synthetic and regular slate. That's what they say. So you haven't seen a sample of it yet either or anything? I mean I saw a little sample of it but not a full roof version of it. What's the lifespan on it? 50 plus years and it's going to end up being a hot roof in that area as well so I'm not sure and I was trying to look up online today whether I could determine if that's going to change the dynamics of that roof structure with being either slate or synthetic slate and I couldn't find any easy answers online. When you were getting your estimates did they give you a rough idea how much the synthetic would weigh a square compared to slate square? Supposedly it's about 40% less a square. They also said that because we asked if there was any way we'd be able to save the slate that was there and the roof that we did get in touch with he said chances are you'll be able to save about 20% of them. He said most of them are going to be brittle as soon as you go to take the nails out because that came up at the hack meeting as well. We don't know because we haven't tried to take any up yet. Emily did you attend the hack meeting? Yes, I did. What was the rationale to not use standing same roof? So the rationale there was how prominent slate is on this structure. It's a single story within an attic level and the roof faces the street. So it's a very prominent feature of this structure. This is just the front face, correct? Well, it'd be both. Front and back face. But just the old original main building. For now it's the main. I won't get it to the yes. For now it's all working. I would concur that it's the right way to do this. You've got multiple pieces of this building with different structural systems on each one and you could use the same rationale and go through and come to a different conclusion on every piece of that building and suspect. Other DRP members, questions? One comment. The use of casement windows for egress, that certainly makes sense. Can you buy them? I think you can with some form of divided light system in the casement so they look similar. It's going to look like the windows below. It's just going to be, they'll end up being casement styles where they open from the center of the building. Right. And will the new windows be a 6 over 1 pattern? It was requested that it be 6 over 6. 6 over 6. 6 over 6? Even though the existing windows are 6 over 1. It was requested that it be 6 over 6. So we will do whatever is desired. I guess I would ask staff what was the rationale there unless there's some data out there because the original windows in 1850 were 6 over 6. We presume the windows in the 1800s were 6 over 6. Our historic register, the photos go back to the 1970s and it is a 6 over 1. The speculation is because it has history as different commercial uses, the use of the lower ones over time changed to one pane of glass over 6 panes. So I think 6 over 1, 6 over 6, I think either would be acceptable. It's a topic that could last an entire historic preservation seminar over two days probably. I'm sure it could. Hey, this is Nate Andrews. I apologize. I'm remote today. I'm just curious. I see that there's a color for the synthetic slate listed or two colors, but there's no brand. Do you recall what the brand was that you looked at? They had a couple of different brands, one that they use the most, and I don't know it off the top of my head unfortunately. Okay. And I didn't really want to spend a ton of time researching it if it was going to be, we were told to use slate. So once we, we're going to try to match what's on there the best we can if we're using synthetics. Sure. I mean, I've seen some that definitely looked like real slate. I don't know what brand they were. It would be good to know I think going into this, what the brand is just because again, this is kind of a vague, we're operating under vague rules here that we don't want. Nobody wants a roof that looks like plastic. I'm sure you don't either, but maybe a sample or a brand would be the only way to know that for sure. Do you know if that is the original roof on there? Any idea? I don't know. Are the joists, are the joists, the roof joists, are they square around? They are square. They are square. Hand hewn I assume? Hand hewn, yes. You're going to try and save any of them? I will sister in. You're going to sister in next to them? Everything. So everything that's there is going to stay. We'll just add additional. We're not replacing any of those. But we are the intent is because of the, the apartment, the shape of it is, I think we're going to have to spray foam the whole roof. Like I said, and keep it as a hot group versus a ventilated roof. Any other questions from DRB members? No. Okay. Any questions from the public? If you're present, raise your hand. If you're remote, raise your virtual hand. No chats and no raised hands. Okay. Thank you. Any last comments by DRB members or the applicant? Okay. Hearing none, I'm going to close HP 22 dash zero five at seven 29. Thank you for coming. Okay. Okay. Next up is, it's the big package. VP. 21 dash 18. Who is present from the applicant? With Snyder almost Dan Hile with true bail consulting engineers. Thank you very much. Who's the staff member? There was what there was a third member of their team. Okay. You might recognize. Okay. Okay. Got it. Who's the staff member who is as this one is it Emily? Yep. Before we do that. Okay. Stage is yours, Emily. Before we do that, I'm going to recuse myself. I have a financial relationship with the applicant, although not a financial relationship with this development. So this is a request for a discretionary permit to construct phase one of the annex. This includes Baudry Lane, Alpine Drive, Baudry Lane and a road connection to Chelsea place done more late. This phase one includes 208 dwellings as carriage homes, duplexes, townhomes and two apartment buildings. The future phase two, which is not under review tonight, includes Cabot Lane and a 65 unit senior living facility, as well as two parks and the remaining 68 dwellings. The property currently has a single family house off of Baudry Lane and the remaining land is vacant. The property is 54.2 acres. The current use is residential and vacant and the proposed use is residential and commercial. It has access onto state and town roads. It is located in the Taft Corner zoning district. It was subject to both conservation commission review and design review. So tonight's staff is recommending that the DRB take testimony and continue the hearing and deliberate and offer a decision in the future. We're recommending this discussion in continuance because there are several outstanding items that need to be addressed before staff recommends approval. One of those issues is the right-of-way width that needs to be discussed with the slack board. I'll get into that further. But there's several topics in this staff report that are highlighted in bold where the DRB can offer the applicant some direction on revisions before they come back to the DRB for the continued hearing. Therefore, staff has provided a list at the end of the staff report of the additional information or revisions that will be needed and we have not drafted any findings or conclusions or a motion for approval. The DRB may edit that list as they see fit. This is the first time the DRB is reviewing this discretionary permit. This began with pre-application review in September of 2021 and it received growth management allocation in March of this year where it scored 54 points and was allocated 173.5 dwelling unit equivalents. The Historic Advisory Committee and the Conservation Commission recommendations are included in the staff report as well as public works and fire. We note that some of the fire department comments may extend beyond the authority of the zoning bylaws, so they are included as recommendations. We will note that we had an interdepartmental review meeting on this application and we decided to submit a joint statement to the Vermont Agency of Transportation and Transportation regarding the curb cut access onto State Highway Route 2A. I'll get into that in more detail further on. Three comment letters were received at the time of mail out and I believe no additional letters were received to date. We've provided a separate memo to the DRB that provides the context and pathways for some of the topics that were brought up in those letters that the DRB has limited to no authority over, such as gated one way or emergency access, traffic impact on State Highways, regional transportation planning, and the town's winter sidewalk maintenance policy and traffic calming policy which are both policies of the select board, not of the DRB to enforce. There are several pre-application recommendations, many of which have been met in this application, some which need further discussion and need to be shown at the revisions. For example, trash and recycling receptacles throughout the neighborhood. Some more information about the landscaping plan. In terms of the public works comment memo, they did note that the right-of-way on Bowdream Lane needs to meet specifications, et cetera. I can go into these pre-app recommendations during this discussion if the DRB has more questions. I will note that a traffic study was required at pre-application and one was provided. So this is located in the Taft Corner Zoning District where the proposed use of residential and senior living are allowed uses. Compliance is anticipated with the dimensional standards so there's no minimal lot size in this zoning district. Structures will generally be pulled to the street and compliance is anticipated with the maximum height limit of 36 feet for the carriage homes, duplexes and town homes and then the taller allowable height of 52 feet for apartment buildings that include structured parking below. No outdoor sales are proposed nor allowed in this district. In terms of development pattern, this is one major item for the DRB to discuss tonight. So the buildings are supposed to come to the sidewalk with the parking located to the side or rear and building entrances should have a direct pedestrian connection to the sidewalk or path. The DRB should discuss the orientation of buildings A and B where the main entrance is placed on the parking lot side. Similarly with the Cabot Lane block, the building orientation and storm water pond placement means the building short sides have a connection to the sidewalk but the principal entrances are from the parking lot. Similarly, the senior living building will front on Alpine Drive but that'll place its parking lot along the front of Cabot Lane. And that the sidewalk should wrap along building A on Alpine Drive to the property line with the SCCU or all the way along the road right of way to Route 2A. Adirondack views, the application does not identify if Adirondack views are visible from the property and if so how they're used as a natural asset. So the revised application would need to demonstrate compliance. TAF Corners also has the 5 of 9 design elements where new development must provide these elements cumulatively or in accessory to multiple buildings that are part of a single development proposal. And some of these elements are related to the growth management score, particularly the urban park and neighborhood space standards correlate here. So we recommend continuing so that applicant can prepare a revised plan set that includes full design and specifications for the park and public art. And the DRB should discuss the quality and quantity of park elements that are required for compliance with the 5 of 9 and growth management score. I've included a separate addendum to your staff report that compares and contrasts what was shown at pre-application, what was committed at growth management and what's being proposed today. The applicant did provide on July 19th specifications for the upland park. This is the park that's founded by wetland buffers and is located off the bike path. We are recommending design not only for that park, but the neighborhood park proposed at Bodry Lane and Cabot Lane. And for public artwork, that revised submission includes a sundial and the DRB must decide for public art if that sundial is proportionate in size and scale for this development, which is about 55 acres with over 250 homes and senior living units. This image shows the pre-application concept sketch and the discretionary permit concept sketch. Overarching design elements. This has relationships to multiple by-law chapters. For on-street parking, currently only the north side of Eden Lane has on-street parking. The DRB and applicants should discuss if additional parking should be strategically located on Bodry Lane or Cabot Lane, particularly near the neighborhood green. And the fire department is interested in a coordinated plan for on-street parking as well as no parking signage to ensure adequate access throughout the neighborhood. I also have a note here about the upland and neighborhood green, which we just discussed. And the Cabot Lane block. So at pre-application, this area was shown to have retained the grove, which is a small tree-filled rock outcropping that's proposed to be eliminated. A neighborhood park is shown there, but there'll need to be more information on the neighborhood park. And overall, the DRB and applicants should discuss the layout of this block, particularly the orientation of the buildings to the street and the location of the grove. Sidewalks extending the sidewalk on both sides of Alpine Drive near Building A. And another major topic for the DRB overall is street layout. So Eden Lane is proposed to have a very large radius curve before it intersects with Alpine Drive. And in this curve, it intersects with the alleyway driveways for all the townhomes as well as the driveway access for the two apartment buildings. And we foresee this along with the parallel parking directly across from that driveway to create some challenges with vehicles moving very fast through this radius turn and vehicles maneuvering into parking spaces are out of driveway. So one option for the applicant to consider and the staff and the DRB to discuss would be reconfiguring Eden Lane with a 90-degree angle as well as eliminating the surface parking between the building and the street. So the by-law says parking should be side and rear. This rank of parking spaces is located in the front yard. This would create opportunity for either a pocket park or another rank of townhomes and that 90-degree angle would force vehicles to stop before making a turn. In terms of vested rights, so this application was submitted prior to the warning of the form-based code public hearing. So this application is vested in the current by-laws. I will note that the application submitted that we're reviewing tonight was complete for the purposes of making that determination, but there's still several outstanding items that the DRB can discuss and can make several revisions that are fairly significant in terms of street layout, building design. However, those buildings on the Cabot Lane block are not in phase one and they don't have allocation. So there's a recommendation below that they be removed from this application. They don't have allocation, so they can't be vested. Growth management. So this project scored 54 points and received 173.5 dwelling unit equivalents at growth management. And this does include some Units 28 DUE at the affordable level. That score was based on commitments to affordable housing, providing housing choice, as well as neighborhood space. Compliance is anticipated for most of these criteria. However, neighborhood space, the DRB should discuss tonight. And it should be revised to demonstrate compliance with the eight out of 10 points that were awarded in this category. Staff has provided a separate addendum comparing the by-law requirements, the statements shown at pre-app and growth management, and those sketch concept plans with what's being shown today. Originally there was one main park shown in that bike path wetland buffer area. Now there are two park spaces being proposed, as well as some community space in the apartment buildings that need further clarification before we recommend approval. And another one, sustainable transportation. This is fairly minor, but the application would need to demonstrate compliance with publicly accessible bicycle storage lockers. Access connectivity and traffic studies. So one of the main reasons we're recommending a continuance tonight is because of the Baudry Lane access. The public works specifications call for 64 feet of right-of-way. Portions of Baudry Lane are 50 or 60 feet. So while the street and sidewalk design can fit within that substandard width, the right-of-way width itself is not 64 feet. There are two options here that we see are reasonable. Because the public works specifications are a select board policy, the applicant could seek an exception from the select board. And that's something the DRB does not have authority over, but we would want to have some guarantees around that before we recommend this approval. The other option would be to negotiate with the abutting property owners for that additional 14 to 4 feet of right-of-way. In theory, they could eliminate the access from Baudry Lane. However, we do not recommend this option because it runs counter to the access and connectivity goals of the town plan, and it may have implications for the growth management score. In terms of Route 2A, so the traffic study that was submitted determines that the traffic that will be generated does not necessitate any additional modifications to the intersections, but ultimately it's up to the state of Vermont to decide what happens on Route 2A, a state highway. We did provide a comment letter to VTRANS that we would recommend turning lanes on either Route 2A itself or on the access road or both, or a traffic single to improve traffic flow and safety on this very busy road. The connection to Dunmore Lane and Chelsea Place. So this was anticipated when Chelsea Commons was subdivided in the 1990s, and the right-of-way was dedicated to the town. Additional traffic calming on Dunmore Lane and Chelsea Place would be subject to the select board's traffic calming policy, and the Public Works Director will not be looking for bulb outs or curb extensions at that intersection to change pedestrian or traffic flow at that intersection. And the traffic study was requested at pre-application, and it's included. Parking, off-street parking and loading. This is fairly, we'll need fairly minor revisions at the discretionary permit level to show ADA parking calculations and their parking calculations for the units comply. So two spaces per unit for the carriage homes, duplexes and townhomes, and approximately 1.56 spaces for the apartment buildings, keeping in mind that the apartments are a mix of different bedroom types. And the discretionary permit must be revised to include more information about short-term bicycle racks and long-term bicycle storage. I do note that our bylaw treats one-in-two family dwellings different than multi-family dwellings. However, the townhomes and those 12-plex buildings are kind of in the middle, so they'll have private garages where homeowners could park their bikes and they wouldn't need a separate long-term parking space in the same way that an apartment building would where there's more communal space and smaller units. But overall, compliance is anticipated for residential parking. On-site infrastructure. So this property is served by municipal water and sewer. The Public Works Department is in charge of making sure that those connections are adequate to their specifications. The discretionary permit must show the location of utility boxes and should ideally place them away from prominent street corners or parks. The bylaw does have standards about bus service and projects that will benefit may be required to provide or contribute to bus stops, shelters, or pull-outs. So this residential development creates several new units and it will have frontage onto Route 2A. So the applicant should discuss with Green Mountain Transit about providing a bus shelter and provide a written documentation in the revised plan set. Maintenance, the DRB should discuss the dumpster locations. Our bylaw prefers that they be co-located within or directly adjacent to a building. However, Fire Department Plan Review prefers them separated from the structure. So the DRB and applicant should discuss the placement. For compatibility, potential hazards and nuisances, utility installations, mechanical equipment must be screened from view. The discretionary permit must be revised to demonstrate compliance with the standard, particularly the screening of rooftop mechanical on the pitched roof and flat roof structures. Density, transfer of development rights complies as proposed with the density of 7.5 dwelling unit equivalents per acre. No transfer of development rights is proposed. The density analysis does leave about 7 dwelling unit equivalents unclaimed. Design review, so the HAC reviewed this on July 5th in 19th. They were generally unsatisfied with the quality and quantity of park space and amenities. They recognized that some recommendations were struck by the DRB at PREAP, but several of others were not addressed by the applicant, particularly the variety of architectural styles provided. The HAC did prefer shared driveways and side-facing garages for the carriage homes. However, the applicant explained that stormwater flow and structure distancing would make that infeasible, so they struck that recommendation themselves. Several of their recommendations pertain to buildings A and B, orientation to the street, the architectural style, not feeling compatible with the duplexes and carriage homes, which are a modern farmhouse. Since then, the applicant has provided revised renderings of those buildings, but they will need to go through HAC review prior to the next continuance. Emily, can I give one clarification? You started this with, did you say that the HAC was generally satisfied? Unsatisfied. Unsatisfied, okay, good, because that's what the report says. Yes. Okay, thank you. Landscaping compliance is anticipated here. The landscaping chapter looks at landscaping around the exterior property boundaries. So while their plan does include internal landscaping around the new buildings and street trees along the streets, this section focused primarily on abutting properties. I call attention to two locations. Chelsea Commons, their landscaping plan does note that several of the existing cedars either straddle the property line or are on the Essex Lines church property. They're proposing to retain those existing trees and then supplement with the required buffer, where the property abuts Half Moon Circle and Finney Crossing. The landscaping plan doesn't identify what's existing. Aerial imagery does show that there are some existing stands of trees. And we would like to see this revised to show how existing vegetation will be retained and supplemented along that property boundary. Street trees, compliance is anticipated. So along new and existing roads, roads, trees are required at a spacing of 40 feet. Where several trees are provided, there needs to be a species diversity. So not planting too many of one particular type of tree. Compliance needs to be demonstrated there. Conservation areas. This property is within the map significant wildlife habitat area. The Habitat Disturbance Assessment concluded that it will result in a moderate adverse long-term impact. But it states that the impact is not undo and that there are no recommendations for mitigation here. Primarily that wildlife habitat corridor is along the tree line and overlaps with the wetland buffer. There are other conservation areas in the by-law that are not on this property like unique natural communities, rare species, scenic viewshed. Watershed health. So there needs to be a functional assessment of the class through wetlands. I believe that has been submitted, but it still needs to go through the Conservation Commission review. And we are also requesting that the applicant provide documentation that the multi-use path and upland park where Jason to the wetland and wetland buffers is permissible by Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. So locally we protect wetlands and wetland buffers. The state has its own authority as well. And we would like some guarantees if there's going to be this park space providing a lot of entities. And it's going to be near the wetlands that the state's not going to say no to that park space. Stormwater ponds and gravel wetlands need to be identified on all pages of the plan set. There was discussion at the hack review that the land to the west of the Senior Living Building, which is in phase two, it was referred to as usable open space. How other plans show it as a gravel wetland for stormwater. And the Conservation Commission recommendations are listed here. Outdoor lighting compliance is anticipated. The plan must be revised to provide additional metrics about overall output, security lighting, parking lot timing, et cetera. Lastly, signs in public art. Temporary construction signs and a permanent neighborhood sign can be approved administratively. Larger or more numerous signs need a master sign plan. And impact fees, school recreation and transportation impact fees are paid on a per unit basis at the time of administrative permit. What follows is the list of outstanding items that need to be addressed, some of which the DRB must edit tonight and others the DRB has discretion to edit. Thank you. Okay. There's a lot to unpack there, Emily. I'd like to go to the 16 item list. And if you could display that please on the screen. I'd like to identify the items that you want ERB feedback on tonight. Is it all of the, the bold items for a five. 12 a B and C. Is that the extent of the list? Correct. Okay. Okay, good. Okay. At this point, I'd like to turn it over to Chris Snyder and his team. I'd like you to comment on what you just heard. I'd also like your feedback on when you think you would be ready. You would be ready. Staff has proposed either September 13th or 27th. For the continuance of this application. There is a fair amount of work to be done. And I'd like to get some feedback from you on. What you would be comfortable with in terms of turnaround time. So with that, Chris, the floor is yours. Thank you very much. Thank you all very much for your time this evening. And for the time that staff has already committed and participating in the review of our current application before the DRB. To answer your first question of the night is, you know, in terms of the continuance, most of the items are in process or being in process. We realize that there is going, depending upon the DRB's perspective, timing to the select board is going to be the issue or the question that we have. But I would say that our preference would be the September 13th, if not earlier in August in terms of a continuance to answer some of the items. But assuming that vacations in summer time, you know, the September 13th would be our preference for a continuance. First off, I think it's important to note that, you know, what we are submitting and what we're reviewing today is a proposed neighborhood of which the parcel was previously approved in two different iterations. In the 90s and also in 2010, 2011, 2012, previously permitted for an approximately 100,000 square foot church along with, you know, 550 parking spaces and dwelling units and that it should just be noted that there was previous approvals for the overall property. And, you know, we, as clarification, just so that I know we have many of our homeowners from our neighboring community, Finney Crossing and Chelsea Commons, we were not participating in this until two years ago. So this was not something that we knew about, not a project that was on our horizon, but it was something that came up after the fact of us basically completing all the homes at Finney Crossing. We have proposed a overall project layout as described in our application. However, what we really are reviewing is the Phase 1 specific information. In Phase 1, and I don't know, Emily, if you can pull up on the screen the phase phasing plan, because I think it's important to show sort of what that piece is in terms of this property. Generally, Phase 1 is all of the road and infrastructure throughout the neighborhood. And then also along those roads are residential homes and basically it's in the south portion of the property, the eastern portion and the northern leg of Baudry Lane. The interior portion is being considered under Phase 2 because of the way that the growth allocations were laid out for the overall property. So, as Emily noted right where her scroll is, Cabot Drive and the 12-unit town or kind of Minion buildings would be within that Phase 2. So what we are talking about is Phase 1, which is the two apartment buildings on the southern portion of the property, the duplexes in town homes that abut Chelsea Place and then the carriage homes that abut Fitty Crossing and the Allenbrook open space area. I think it's also important to note that one of the really important components that I've held to and make sure that we were sticking to is that the types of homes that are being constructed in adjacencies to existing homes are the same type of homes. We're not generally, there's duplexes backing up to triplexes or foreplexes. There's carriage homes, abutting carriage homes and that was very responsive and something that I felt very strongly about all throughout the design process and one of the reasons why we wanted to ensure that we were following the current bylaws is making sure that we were matching those pieces there as well. The overall project does have 276 residential units, 65 senior independent living apartments and Phase 1 has 208 homes which is equal to 173.5 dwelling unit in equivalence because of how the one-bedroom and studio units get counted through the growth management process. Within this first phase we do have carriage homes, duplexes, rear-loaded town homes and apartment buildings. Let's see here. In Phase 2, I'm not really going to talk about Phase 2 much tonight but in Phase 2 there is a, that's what their senior living building along with 12-unit multifamily flats are located and then a 32-unit rear-loaded town homes on the south side of Bojack Lane. We have made, as staff noted in their review, we've made some changes from pre-application as we have gathered more specific data for this application. One and kind of the most important component is that the storm water system has been completely designed for the property. And what changed is that the storm, size of the storm system has grown to meet a higher standard, a 100-year storm standard in terms of the gravel wetland. What that does is it really expands the capacity of the storm water systems throughout the property. We have located the public park which is in Phase 1 and as Emily noted on our original application we did not include the public park as part of this. During the hack and conservation commission meetings we did make a commitment that we didn't want to include that and so part of the continuance is for us to be able to provide the plans associated with the park which we have since done and that does need to be reviewed by the hack and the conservation commission but there are details associated with the public park. That whole area associated with the bike path or recreational path through the upland and the wetland buffer has been modified quite a bit and that is based upon our discussions about whether or not the state of Vermont was going to approve the impacts associated with the proposed recreational path that we originally had. I think we became a little bit more realistic and said we have to limit our impact in those areas and so there is much less impact to the wetland in open space than what was originally proposed. The other component about the recreational path was that some members of the hack were concerned and during some of the other meetings about having more of a direct access through the neighborhood rather than a winding access and although the path is still undulating a bit it's a bit more direct but what we are trying to do is follow some of those buffer and wetland impact areas so that we reduce those. We did relocate the senior housing building and we felt that it was more appropriate to have it closer to Alpine Drive in terms of access and egress in and out of the property. We felt that was important to do and it also reduced the impacts within the buffer area when it was on the northern portion of the property. We did relocate several of the homes that were on the northern side of Bojri Lane into the middle core and what we basically have done is the central block which is going to be considered within phase two. Instead of having spread out carriage homes and duplexes what we have done is created three 12-unit buildings. That has created two spaces one which is a gravel wetland on the northern portion and also a neighborhood green or park on the southern portion of the property as well. By going more dense and with the two-story buildings in those locations we were able to increase some of those spaces. On the flip side we did lose some of the rock stand area in the center however we felt that the neighborhood park overcame the reduction or modification of that. As affordable units one of the key components to our growth allocation was that we would be providing some affordable units within the property. We are planning to do that. We are proposing that we would construct 14 two-bedroom apartment units in building A and 14 in apartment building R growth management requirements. In terms of Bojri Lane we are going to be requesting exemption by the select board to allow for a reduced right of way. I think it is important to note that our proposed road in 10 foot recreational path fits within the 50 foot existing right of way. The right of way is as under the specifications would need to be wider however none of the infrastructure would go outside of the 50 foot existing right of way in place. Emily do you have that exhibit I emailed earlier today showing that proposed road within that Bojri Lane right of way? I do. So you can see that we are able within the 50 foot and within the 60 foot able to construct a 27 foot wide road have a 5 foot green strip on the south side 6 foot on the north side and 10 foot recreational path on the south side. And that is also based on conversations that we had with the Department of Public Works. Right now in the plan before you tonight we have a 30 foot wide travel lane but in talking with Public Works they set a 27 foot travel lane in between Route 2A and Alpine Drive would be acceptable along Bojri Lane. Between Alpine Drive going down to Chelsea Place that would increase to 30 feet again. And that recreational path on the south side of Bojri Lane was also a common Public Works had. Right now we were proposing a 5 foot sidewalk on the north side of Bojri Lane but Public Works wants a 10 foot recreational path on that south side. So with the 27 foot and the 5 foot green strip 6 foot width on the north side of the 10 foot rec path set 1 foot off the property line per the Public Works requirement we are able to fit that within that 50 foot right of way and provide snow storage. So we certainly understand the Bojri Lane discussion and are prepared to go to the select board and request that exception to this particular situation. In terms of traffic you know we have submitted a whole traffic report based upon the proposed homes being constructed within the neighborhood. We have submitted this along with an application to the state for the review and waiting to hear back from them. And you know I think we I wanted personally you know comment and say that hey I certainly understand concerns raised by neighbors. We we if there's things that we can do to address their concerns then we're certainly willing to have those discussions but that we do need to follow the town's rules and regulations and the state as to how traffic is perceived or addressed through their different components. Obviously there's a lot of stuff to review in this application and we're here tonight to answer specific questions about Phase 1 the overall project or any of the items that were noted on the list that the staff had provided to both the DRB members and ourselves on page 18. Okay thank you Chris. Okay what I'd like to do next is go through the items that staff has identified where they want DRB input and chip away at those items and Emily if you could display that on the screen please let's start with item 4A and if you could you being Emily if you could just provide a little background on the specifics of the guidance that you're looking for from the DRB please. So in this separate attachment I've compared what was shown at pre-application so they call it a park activity center with a small community picnic pavilion, grilling areas, fireplace sitting area, hammocks, age-appropriate play areas and other activity spaces as well as the grove which is that tree rock outcropping that was what was described at pre-application at growth management they discussed a small common space in the lobby of each apartment buildings a neighborhood park near the senior living building the park will include walking paths play structure benches and some picnic tables and what's proposed now in this plan is a 12 by 20 pavilion with a couple picnic tables and a few benches and the little sundial garden I estimate the park or the plaza around the sundial to be about 113 square feet as well as not seeing the specifications for playgrounds or taut lots that were discussed at pre-application there was also the town home muse which was a stormwater walking path feature that was eliminated as a pre-app recommendation but was thought of as part of the overall park and amenity space the image here on the left shows that even at pre-app some of the park areas and playgrounds and activity spaces were within the wetland buffer which then would not have been approval though the space has shrunk the amenities have also changed and the discussion of how the neighborhood park how this park can be designed to uphold that growth management score which was 8 out of 10 points for providing neighborhood space that is easily accessible and useful to inhabitants points are based on size, diversity of functions and other characteristics such as a meeting room fitness center daycare center or other neighborhood space acceptable to the DRB the intent is to encourage the creation of places for recreational and civic activities that foster neighborliness that need not be maintained by the town and that is the growth management criteria the taff corners 5 of 9 for urban park states that it be visible and accessible to the public so that it complements proposed uses a picnic table for an employee lunch break is not in urban park I think both the locations along Cabot Lane and Vodric Drive intersection or along the bike path both of those meet that visible and accessible and that the public art must be proportionate in size and scale to the buildings in the proposed development and those are the key areas for the DRB to discuss and give feedback DRB members I would like your thoughts and comments please I think we do need more detail on the park so that we don't run into issues that we did in the past even though they're in phase 2 I would like to see the detail on the park so sizing of them and stuff that will be in them and stuff like that too Paul Christensen comments Turner got it Don Hemmelgaard yeah I'm struggling here to digest all of this to be honest with you as to what was what was originally in there what was growth management how what are our expectations I think my views from previous applications are fairly well known to this applicant on public parks you know I think that it's important to think about who's using these parks and how you appeal to them and to create an active zone in there you know again if it's surrounded by senior living you don't want maybe it does make sense to put it in the toddler playground there because the grandchildren may be visiting so I think it's really important to me that these amenities are intentional and well designed I'm still struggling with the with the loss of the growth I'm not I mean I remember to the extent that my memory is any good that at Pre-Application Why Not we talk about that and that seemed to be a feature that was being featured and so now it seems less important so I'm I guess I'd like a little more explanation of why we're not trying to keep that it appears that I do know that there's been discussion in town about how important green spaces are to the community and if we have a chance to preserve an important one you know so either it's important and we should keep it or it never was and so it doesn't really matter so I'm not sure how we got there my sense is that the stormwater requirements grew and I'm sensitive to that I appreciate what's going on there and that that probably has started to limit where open spaces can be and where buildings can be but I guess I'd like a little bit of explanation on why that growth is no longer as important as it was Would you like me to answer that now? Yes please So the I think that central block or area has been modified probably the most of the overall property from our pre-applications and growth management discussions and I think one yes the gravel wetland the square footage of the actual gravel wetlands has grown by probably by 25% 30% compared to pre-app so substantially grown so what that did is it sort of forced us to sort of rethink some of those areas and how to incorporate those now these are also gravel although they show is blue water but they aren't blue water anymore I was going to make that point here but like nobody really understands that these gravel wetlands really you don't see water anymore right and we have some that are currently in use in another property and I never see water in the gravel wetland anymore so I think they grow grass they but they are substantial they kind of look like open space people are using them like open space they're walking on them and playing on them but they're graveled on them so I think that's one piece the overall scope and what's happened the other piece is we have to think about that we did not get growth management for the overall property and because of that phase two is going to be considered under form-based code in most we've requested that it not be by to put within form-based code but realistically I think that it's a 50-50 chance that this is going to get considered under form-based code with that we now have to create allies in terms of roadways and how you access these homes and still to notice that the homes along Bowdrey and this interior block and you know the senior housing is all like their their allies in anticipation of form-based having to rely on form-based code so we're speculating when we're designing this that that's what was potentially going to happen and to maintain the density we lost seven units from the original application what we wanted to do is try to maintain density and so what we've done is change the product mix to a different product mix that type of homes but it shrunk the footprints of those homes but we have to think about the ally and so by doing what we've proposed we've done that but yet we also created this neighborhood green or neighborhood park area on the south end which although the Grove was really great and I still like the Grove idea but this park is actually going to be more usable than the Grove is and so I guess that's the would we consider it important yeah it was during those discussions and we certainly wanted to try to keep it but in this case considering two substantial changes that are going on it really does affect how we responded to the design within that block did that answer your question it helps yes I'm not sure there's a real answer I'm not sure there was a real question here yeah but it was a comment and I think it helps understand the context yeah Nate do you have any comments questions I'm okay right now thanks Pete okay thank you okay Emily I'm not sure where this leaves us in terms of DRB feedback that you necessarily were looking for I guess we'll have to see what the applicant shows in the revision for the neighborhood park and the park design the DRB either now or in deliberations could fill out for a with some some direction okay yeah okay understood item five public art I think that we'll do the same in deliberations we'll have a conversation about that and provide comments and feedback that news and can be provided to the applicant Pete do you have a question on that I guess there's a lot of material here and I don't recall seeing a lot of maybe I just missed it here in the volume of the information on the sundial when we talk about the proportionality of it is there something in here that states kind of how big it is or it shows us a picture of that yep so item five one oh two which we forwarded I believe last week showing the park and showing the proposed sundial garden that's a place we're still working through the design and we're looking for feedback from the DRB on that proportionality we've looked at a couple different options whether that's a structure or whether it's just at grade ground level but we wanted to call it out on the plan but we do not have a final design yet as we were seeking feedback from the DRB on what kind of scale they would be looking for and I would add it's an idea and we're we're saying to you like do people like we conjure up these ideas right and then we go do people think that these are good ideas or is this like a totally throw away idea we can throw away this idea and come up with a new idea but we don't know if a sundial people think is we kind of kind of what sounds throw it away cool I mean I think you probably won't be surprised what he says I think it depends on what else is in the park and what's next to it and what are the kids going to do that wander over from one activity or one area and are they going to be there or if it's giant and huge it becomes the focal point for this park and it's kind of what everyone sits around the periphery and looks at and says yeah that's really cool we've got the state's biggest sundial here or it's a little thing that's just another little ancillary component that has some rocks around it or whatever so I think the scale of it can be appropriate at any time I know one designer who says there's no such thing as an ugly color it's just a bad use on it so I think sundial can be a fine piece there but what else is there how does it relate to the other items it really gets down to what Emily was talking about of having a comprehensive plan of what's there and our intent with this park in the upland area was more for passive recreational use where people can come have a picnic throw a frisbee around in the field kick the soccer ball you know it is taking up that upland area around the 50 foot wetland buffer we are proposing a split rail fence along that buffer with seating around the perimeter so people could watch their kids having fun in the field and we thought the sundial kind of fits with that passive recreational use where maybe the neighborhood green could have other amenities I mean I appreciate what you're saying here but one of the important things the first kind of state to us what the intent is and what you're trying to achieve we can then comment on that whether we think that's appropriate and then secondly we can start to comment on whether what you're showing us actually achieves what you said you were trying to and I think at that point it becomes a lot easier for us I think to give feedback and I think it's also important to note that the state park area is also directly connected to the public recreational path where people from all neighborhoods are going to be coming through so it is really more of a real public area because there's no residences around it it's full on and so I think of those types of spaces slightly different but green yes I think that's right and I was going to mention a couple other things here is that I like this path going through the wetlands I think it's really important as Emily asked to make sure that the state is good with that because I'd hate for us to kind of get very enthusiastic about this design and find out later that it's not going to be there and the whole thing kind of dries up and withers and goes away but I think you're correct in that that path I mean this park is also that path that path is part of this because it's part of the experience not just between the yellow lines there but it's from where you cross the last street until you get to the next one that's really the experience this is a resting spot this is a node within that green space which I think is going to be important to everybody in town they're not going to perceive those yellow lines which are riding by on their bikes or pushing their baby carriage but it is going to be important that there's a spot there that you get to the middle of the green space and you can stop and there's some activities that go on there and it may be entirely appropriate there in this case that there are some more passive activities or a mix and whatnot so I think that's how I'd like to look at this and and then now you've got a second spot on this site this is starting to sound a lot like a pre-op but there's a second site on that site where it is much more kind of a suburban type of space where you've got a lot more units around there it is a neighborhood type of space and what kind of activities are appropriate there as compared to the other and I think right off having two different ones on this site is a good thing having two of the same thing in two different contexts a little odd and probably inappropriate so I think that here's a chance to really kind of get more diversity on these spaces so I don't have a problem with the bike path where it is and how it's located, I like the curves I think it's better than having a straight path and I think dividing these up into a couple spots is good I'd hate for the form-based code to be the one that kind of dictates that third building to be the one that has to get shoved away from the road instead of up along the street because we need an alleyway on there I think that's a little I'm not sure we can talk about that all later but that's what I was hearing here because in some ways I'd like that green to be in between all those so that they get access out the back instead they have access to the parking lot so it can still be fine on the corner but it's nice to get those parks maybe a little bit away from where the traffic is going to be and I appreciate the traffic study and whatnot the fact is there's a lot of houses here so there's going to be plenty of cars and kids run out on the street so I don't know what the age distribution of people living here is going to be we don't either you've got a better idea than me we have a mix of studios one's two bedrooms and three bedroom homes and the three bedrooms are going to be more limited than the two bedroom homes so I think that changes it anyway I do a lot of walking through Finney Crossing and whatnot and Chelsea Place and I don't see a lot of kids out at Finney Crossing right now certainly not in a long time I think that's the point it would be interesting to know how many kids get picked up by the bus I don't know what that is as of right now I knew what it was several years ago those demographics change over time families they grow and move into a neighborhood and they're still there 20 years later they're kids are little and now they're not even there so it all changes well I think so everybody understand the neighborhood green was not designed as part of our updated park plan because it was in it's in phase 2 or it was planned to be in phase 2 so what we're hearing is hey we need to include in phase 1 so what we're saying is no problem we'll work on that and for our continued hearing that we'll have both parks proposed plans I appreciate that one of the things that I like when you came in for the pre-app was the presentation you had for the sales pitch of the parks and everything else so if we can stick with something like that I think that would be great absolutely we can certainly work on that in any kind of analysis that you can do to compare what you had to make it as clear and simple for us to understand what was and how your new proposal is still kind of achieving the same things that would be helpful yeah and if Emily could just pull up the her just go up a little bit higher on that same sheet maybe I think one of the maybe scroll down a little bit but the yeah there you go one of the things to note is we don't have pads the central wetland corridor to the right of the public park and in the previous application we did have pads through some of those areas but it's all going to be open space so one of the things that we need to think about is as we're looking and as people are reviewing this application you know that space that square footage hasn't really changed what we're talking about is just the upland park which is the one little piece that we had shown before so all this other open space is going to remain as previously designed so there's shifts but it's there's a lot of it remaining intact right and again I'm not suggesting that this doesn't meet that we just like we'd all like to feel really good about this yeah so previously you had some bridges over wetlands and stuff like that is that still going to be considered or is that going away? we are concerned that the state is not going to approve some of those connections and so what we're proposing is a recreation path in the public park area in the upland only so the bridges and the other pads are even being gravel they are not going to so this is another question I'm looking at this and you've got the pedestrian path and there's the open space to the the north and east of it correct? it's essentially undeveloped it's open space you're going to be able to look out there and see the birds and somebody will plant a couple bluebird houses and whatnot I don't know this may be as much for you guys how's that space maintained because over time the poplars start to grow up in there and then the little pine trees pretty soon it gets all filled in and it's not really an open space anymore that you can kind of perceive very much from that maybe it's a good thing, maybe it's not but it might be nice to have it kind of be a little more intentional and I refer you to some of the open space I see it say Brennan Woods that I see every day at my house right so our bylaw prohibits mowing in watershed protection buffers which include this 50 foot wetland buffer so those trees and whatnot will grow up naturally and it'll change over time as nature takes its course the living landscape and that would be most likely a condition of the wetlands permit to the state wetlands permit I'd like to continue on to item number 12 please on stats list and Emily if you could walk us through the 12A, 12B 12C show us on the plan where those buildings are and what the issues are yep and I think in this list as well I probably should have included the Eden Lane configuration which will change right the Port of Eden Lane configuration will change a little bit of the connection to the A and B and we were kind of looking at that as buildings A and B specifically building B for Eden Lane right so the image on the left shows the two apartment buildings running along the north side is Alpine Drive and then you have Eden Lane along here they have garage parking access on the south side and then a shared surface parking lot in the middle and our bylaw says pull the buildings to the street main entrances should front on the street the main entrances for apartment A are in the corner of the L down here and then for apartment B on the the inverse side and this configuration places a rank of parking in the front yard which is not permitted and it also creates this no man's land space between the building and the sidewalk where it's wide enough to have some landscaping but not large enough or inviting enough to be a space where people will want to use so just thinking about that configuration here for senior living the building fronts on Alpine Drive but then it places that parking lot along the front of Cabot Lane and though this is the approval for phase one it is important to think about phase two and how it will relate to the overall street connectivity I think we can say we have no concerns about creating a access to from on building B which is the eastern building either from Alpine Drive or from even we can do that no problem I guess the question is do you want it on one or the other and it probably depends upon how the road functions along Eden and the proposed staff comment if it's squared off I would say I'd prefer to see it on Eden more because of how the straight road section is right and our standard doesn't preclude having an access from the parking lot just that there be one on the street so if it was on Eden those two could probably have a corridor in the middle building A looks more problematic yeah because it's only one it's the end of the building right? it's a 64 foot wide it's not a perfect scenario to enter in off of Alpine Drive secondary access off the parking lot which is where you see that sort of grey the walkway that is the secondary access and we can modify it to be a little bit more of a primary one but you'd still be walking down along a corridor versus coming in through the center of Alpine Drive I guess my first comment is that you've got two streets and two buildings I can't solve it sitting here drawing in my head but is there another configuration of those buildings in that block of space that will allow you to put more building along the street and in less of a kind of back into the back depths of the site on the other hand is the purpose to have the building along the street is to have all the building facing a street or is it having all the street have a building if you understand what I'm saying because it's to have most of the street with a building along it and not parking lot then what he's got showing what they're showing is pretty good how will development be made more pedestrian friendly this is the standard for this zoning district there must be a direct pedestrian connection between the principal building entrance and the sidewalk or path along the joining streets this is in contrast to the current situation in which the connection is from the parking area building line to the sidewalk new buildings must come to the sidewalk this means that parking and outdoor sales must move to the side or rear of the building or into a structure an exception may be made for an entry plaza or courtyard a municipal parking or where terrain and necessary grading may bring the building to the sidewalk and practical seems like there's some flexibility in there I kind of I just have a question aren't we providing direct pedestrian access between the sidewalk infrastructure along the street in the main entrance granted you have to travel along the parking lot isn't that direct pedestrian access but new buildings must come to the sidewalk parking must move to the side or rear or into a structure so I think as proposed it does meet that pedestrian connection but the challenge is with where the building fronts and this creation of parking that's kind of in the front along alpine I'm sorry which parking along alpine that parking right there okay yeah yeah well I think the change of Eden Lane will necessitate some modifications to access onto into the parking area and the other pieces we do have to have to access points so from a fire safety I think they're going to require us to have two separate entrances there for these apartment buildings so I think we can work through that I think the road change is going to change some of the other little things that we how we modify that and I am sticking behind my I wanted to create that little bit of a bend in that road in everybody's it makes it harder because it's not a square straight line and I like that and I think it helps reduce traffic speed through the neighborhood so I'll have to figure that out the sharper the curve the slower people go around it while we're talking about building A and B I recommend I think rotating building B right now if it's at 12 o'clock to 11 o'clock so a slight rotation does the board have any opinion on that right now they're parallel building A and B Pete I'm going to let somebody else talk for a bit I would say I don't I don't have any comment on that I don't have a strong opinion either way and especially if you're going to change Eden if Eden changes and squares up and then it's closer to the road it's better having it squared to the road squared to Eden Road Eden Lane that's important to me because I have to comment you've given me a trip back down memory lane here because I grew up as a child on Eden Lane long ago in a galaxy far far away here you go but every time you say that it kind of makes me shiver okay very good at this point I would like to open it up to public comments please this is an opportunity for those participating to the way into the board you can either do that if you're participating virtually or if you are present at the meeting if there's anybody starting with people that are present at the meeting if you would like to address the board please come up to the table with the public blocker and introduce yourself your name and your address for the record please here thank the board for giving me the opportunity to talk to you my comments have been written down and you guys have all seen them and so haven't many members of Finney Crossing in fact they seem to like what I have to say so to interrupt could you just state your name and address my name is Carol Laws and I live at 244 Dunwall Lane Finney Crossing thank you so as I was saying 45 residents of Finney Crossing have agreed with what I had to say and so that's why you'll see their names listed as co-signers so I'm going to read this I would like to offer comments on the proposed project called the annex aka Essex Alliance Church in regards to the DRV public hearing scheduled for July 26, 2022 I will break my comments into parts the current phase 1 proposal vehicular traffic phase 2 proposal and conclusions and recommendations item 1 phase 1 proposal according to a 10 page document dated June 3 2022 Trudell consulting engineers on behalf of the Snyder Group is submitting an application for a discretionary permit for phase 1 of a mixed unit development it is 54.2 acre parcel located east of to a north of Chelsea Commons south of Meadow Run, Forest Run and west of Finney Crossing the project would have access points off in Baudry Lane, Alpine Drive and Dunmore Lane slash Chelsea Place phase 1 consists of 16 single family carriage homes 20 duplex units 40 townhouse units and 132 multi-family apartment units of 208 units and that's apparently as has been discussed 173.5 equivalent units phase 2 which is not being proposed for approval at this time as two carriage homes 32 duplex and townhouse units and 65 senior living units one building for a total of 135 total project would be 343 units item 2 a traffic impact assessment TIA dated June 1, 2022 was prepared by Trudell Consulting Engineer for this project the TIA will look at the full build out of phases 1 and 2 consisting of 18 carriage homes, 92 duplexes and townhouses 168 multi-family apartments and 65 multi-family senior living units the project will be accessed by three new streets an extension of Baudry Lane an existing private drive with direct access to Essex Road which is called obviously Route 2A an extension of an existing private drive serving the Vermont State Employees Credit Union with direct access to Route 2A to be named Alpine Drive a segment of Baudry Lane which will loop through the project and connect to Dunmore Lane in Finney Crossing it's important to note that the report says all three accesses and the primary internal roadways will be constructed or reconstructed to local public street standards and as I understand the public street standard for the town of Wilson is 64 feet and I suspect that that has been utilized hopefully universally and I suspect there's a good reason for it because it works it gives you some flexibility in the future so I would certainly be surprised if something less than 64 feet is allowed is my understanding that Wilson Public Works for a public street requires a 64 foot right away portions of Baudry Lane currently do not have it there is a 180 foot section that's 50 feet and 180 foot section that's 60 feet a memo from the Wilson Department of Public Works says the right-of-way on Baudry Lane shall meet our standards Snyder's proposal keeps the 50 and 60 foot right-of-ways therefore I would say not compliant with Wilson Public Street Public Street specification requiring a 64 foot right-of-way although the TIA is a very technical report with lots of diagrams and charts one is able to get an overview of the peak hour traffic projections by looking at the schematic plan on page 2 Baudry Lane has 9 enters and 6 exits for a total 15 Alpine Drive has 47 enters and 30 exits for a total of 77 Chelsea Place has 42 enters and 26 exits for a total of 68 Dunmore Lane has 15 enters 9 exits for a total of 24 and all of those totaled up enters are 113 and exits 71 as I understand Chelsea Place and Dunmore Lane is essentially the same exit but vehicles coming from the new project will turn right will turn right at Dunmore Lane towards Chelsea Commons and the balance will turn left towards Finney Crossing there are several things that stand out here A. very little traffic projected on Baudry Lane B. heavy traffic projected on Alpine Drive and I'm not sure why that is happening that way but traffic people can probably explain it. Heavy traffic is projected on Chelsea Place and modern traffic is projected on Dunmore Lane and the peak hour all exits is 184 I want to focus on Dunmore Lane projections because that's where I live at 244 Dunmore Lane I am a project debutter and the last home on the west end of Dunmore Lane it is approximately 75 feet from my home driveway curb to the existing curb cup for the new Dunmore Lane access. Not good for sight distance as I back out of my driveway one must add the 24 vehicle peak hour traffic projection to the existing traffic and I'll be careful how I say this as an old retired guy who spends many hours on the front porch I would say the existing peak hour traffic is 4 to 6 vehicles let's say the total is 30 which means one vehicle every 2 minutes not much time for me and 19 other Dunmore Lane owners to back their vehicle out of their garage and onto Dunmore Lane as I personally know the traffic engineer Roger Dickinson at TCE I was pleased that he would talk with me about this project and we had a telephone conversation on the 22nd of June and here are his comments all three public accesses will be public streets. No traffic lights are required on Route 2A or Dunmore Lane no right or left turn lanes are required at Route 2A the total daily traffic from the new project at the Dunmore Lane is estimated at 240 vehicles the total daily traffic from the new project at all exits is estimated at 2200 vehicles item 3 phase 2 proposal at this time is not being proposed for approval as was noted earlier it would consist of 135 units I have correspondence from the town planner Emily Hayman that we expect that Snyder will seek the remaining 70 allocation units over the next few years I believe the 70 allocation units would cover the actual 135 units conclusion and recommendations let me summarize my thoughts regarding increased traffic on Dunmore Lane if a full access public street from the new project is allowed to connect to Dunmore Lane the Snyder project also called the annex is the former Essex Alliance church project the Essex Alliance church project received their permit in or at least one of their permits in 2009 when Finney crossing was approved but not constructed the EAC primary exit to Route 2A at that time was Alpine Drive and the secondary exit was Baudry Lane neither exits required traffic lights as traffic was judged to be minimal on Route 2A on Sundays when most of the church traffic would occur the town of Wilson required a third access point at the site southeast corner to Chelsea Place which is the western end of Dunmore Lane it is very important to note that the town wanted the third access point to quote provide circulation between developments and was quote not intended for through traffic and quote so one can assume that Dunmore Lane and other Finney crossing streets were designed for a small amount of additional traffic primarily on Sundays further one could understand why with only moderate traffic generated on Sundays that the 20 homes on Dunmore Lane could safely back their vehicles onto Dunmore Lane it is my contention that a big percentage of annexed homeowners will choose the Dunmore Lane exit because A the Alpine Drive and Baudry Lane exits onto Route 2A will be very difficult due to the very heavy traffic on Route 2A it will be even more difficult without traffic lights B the easiest access to the interstate is through Finney crossing three traffic lights versus six traffic lights the easiest access to box stores, restaurants shops and services and D no need to pass through task orders it makes sense based on the above that there will be a tremendous increase in quote through traffic on Dunmore Lane Maidstone Lane and Dunmore Lane it could create hazardous conditions for those 20 residents backing their vehicles onto Dunmore Lane for the best of my abilities there is not a single school aged child living in any of these 20 homes this means residents are older and may not hear or see as well Dunmore Lane currently Dunmore Lane can become some part of an obstacle course with many owners backing their vehicles on the street plus FedEx, UPS, USPS maintenance trucks and visitors imagine what it will be if the traffic is increased five to ten times it is obvious from the above that Dunmore Lane was not designed for the quote through traffic end quote there has been a big change in conditions since the 2009 permit was issued so it makes sense to reevaluate whether the permit still makes sense there are some recommendations that I hope will be seriously considered provide two public accesses from the new project to route 2A via Alpine Drive and Baudry Lane with traffic lights in right and left turn lanes at the very least provide traffic lights traffic lights at Alpine Drive with turning lanes make the access to Dunmore Lane and Chelsea Place a gated limited access for emergency vehicles police fire and school buses it could be opened from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. again at the very least if no limited traffic a traffic light must be installed no construction vehicles would be allowed I must respectfully disagree with the traffic engineer Roger Dickerson who concludes that quote based on the results of the foregoing analyses we conclude that this project will not create undue levels of traffic congestion or unsafe conditions on the adjacent roadway network end quote going from one vehicle every 10 minutes to one vehicle every 2 minutes and probably less for the peak hour on Dunmore Lane will in my opinion create undue levels of traffic congestion and unsafe conditions and it will get worse when the good people of the annex quickly figure out that without traffic lights on route 2A it will very likely be unsafe with long wait times and they will migrate to the Dunmore Lane exit thank you for the opportunity to present my thoughts and concerns for this project Dunmore Lane where we have lived for a pleasant residential street where people safely ride their bikes roll a blades roll a ski pull their kids around in carts exercise their dogs, walk and jog there is a lot of socializing between the residents of Finney Crossing and Chelsea Commons I would sure hate to see this wonderful street turned into a very busy urban street with dozens if not hundreds of quote through traffic unquote drivers trying to make their way as quickly as possible to the box stores, restaurants or interstate I hope you will point out any areas where facts are wrong and will pass the report on to the appropriate boards and members also please confirm that you have received this report and that was confirmed and I should add at this point that the staff has been extremely helpful through any questions I have not only good answers but quick answers so I really appreciate it when I was on the planning commission I was the staff that's changed a lot and at the end is the 45 co-signers who have all sent me confirming emails that they wanted to be co-signers I just have a couple of conclusive thoughts number one just to give the annex project some perspective of size here are some numbers the annex has 343 units finny crossing 401 that means that excludes all commercial and the last group of what I call boxy flat roof apartments annex has 54.2 acres finny crossing as near as I could calculate had roughly 52 acres there are 197 apartments on the annex proposed for the annex in 222 exclusive of the flat roof boxy apartments at finny crossing my biggest concern is the very significant additional traffic the project will generate through all of finny crossing peak hour traffic currently is probably 4 to 6 vehicles per hour projected from the annex is 24 bringing it to 30 vehicles per hour or one vehicle every 2 minutes many of annex vehicles if no traffic signals at route 2a will take the Dunwell Lane exit many will not take the Chelsea exit because many residents park their vehicles on the street making it some part of an obstacle course traffic on Dunwell Lane could be double or triple the currently projected from one vehicle per 2 minutes to one every minute or even 30 seconds I am well aware that the town has written a memo to the to retrans recommending turning lanes and or traffic lights in the way and I appreciate that I do have a comment as I just found out that the town has hired an independent consultant to review I think water, sewer and roads but not traffic and so my question is why not have the town hire an independent consultant to review traffic in conclusion all the many residents of Finney Croson want is a safe and pleasant community to live raise a family and retire we are sure that the future residents of the annex want the same thing thank you thank you very much regarding the question about independent analysis for the traffic does staff have any comments on that just getting to the so our bylaw requires that a traffic study be submitted and it calls for the ITE manual that follow those standardized rules for preparing your traffic study but our bylaw is silent on deferring to independent review and importantly deferring the cost of independent review in the applicant that's different than the public work specifications which do have the authority to require independent review and require the applicant to pay for that independent review because the public works are going to take over water, sewer as public infrastructure it's connecting with existing public infrastructure there's a lot of minutia in the details there so the public work standard specifications exercise a high degree of control over things that would be constructed by a private developer but later taken under ownership and maintenance by the town and that's really where that kind of independent review comes from we do look at traffic impact but the standards in our bylaw do not set limits on the amount of traffic created by a development other than to say study shall examine warrants for intersection improvements or improvements to existing roadways where that impact will take place in other words we can see traffic impact in a study but our bylaw doesn't say well at this point there's denial what our bylaw would say is examine for warrants to improve intersections and if necessary those become part of the project I suppose an applicant could say I'm not constructing the improvements the study calls for then get a denial but the truth is the town in terms of how it manages improvements to its own infrastructure manages the impacts of traffic through some project conditioning in response to traffic studies and mostly through the assessment of traffic impact fees and constructions of improvements in the area and that happens as part of the development permitting process so the other issue around traffic is unlike some of the other dimensional or qualitative requirements that are in the bylaw the standards that we have don't really say beyond such and such impact to adjacent roads thou shalt not create new traffic what they say is thou shalt create safe facilities as warranted and meet the standards of the bylaw as they exist to the provision of safe access I hope that wasn't just totally confusing but the point is we often at DRB hear comment that a project will create new vehicle trips most of them will it's pretty hard not to and some of them create significant numbers of new vehicle trips but there's not a breakpoint in the bylaw that says beyond some certain number of trips projects won't be approved or even necessarily that, you know, beyond certain level of service impacts to intersections projects won't be approved it's part of the consideration of what the town might ask an applicant to do in terms of their infrastructure you've seen the comment letter from multiple staff departments really asking v-trans to take a hard look at what infrastructure improvements they might want along their state highways which again, you know, the town does not control but we can ask nicely like anybody but to some degree the town's position around the creation of new vehicle trips is a reactive one just the nature of the role we play in our relationship to new growth in town so I understand your comment that you basically are following the rules I think I would like to focus on the word safe in my opinion in many of my neighbors the increase in traffic from 10 from one vehicle every 10 to 15 minutes to one vehicle every 2 minutes and most likely even more vehicles if there's no traffic lights at at Route 2A and after a few of the fine annex residents try to weave their way through Chelsea Commons nothing wrong with Chelsea Commons it's a fine community we know none of the people but many of them have two cars and one car garage and some of them have two cars and one car garage which they don't park their car in so there's a lot of vehicles in Chelsea Commons and I suspect that the people coming from annex and there's only one alternative and that's Dunmore Lane and so I really want to focus on safe and I just in my mind can't be convinced that that drastic increase in traffic is going to be safe for all us older people we don't have to back our cars out of the garage we can back our cars in and drive out but I think they're equally unsafe it doesn't solve the problem I'm just very concerned that the nature of that street is going to change dramatically I think that there are things that can be done as I've suggested that would help that situation and I certainly hope that the board will look in that direction and Chris Snyder will look in that direction and Roger Dickinson will look in that direction and come up with something that's better than this so that's what I hope that's the big concern we have and I appreciate all your time and your efforts and I think it can be a nice project over there Chris I may even move over thank you very much thanks alright, thank you other members of the public that would like to speak Jim please 44 Chelsea Place I'd like to build on what's already been said only turn from Benny Crossing to Chelsea Place we already have people coming off of 2A down Night Lane blowing off our stop sign at Night Lane and Chelsea Place in order to avoid going to the red light they you know they may be going 30 miles an hour but it's still 5 miles an hour over our posted speed limit and we do have cars parked on the street and sometimes we do that quite intentionally I honestly park on the other side of the street from my neighbor's car as a calming of action and I'm not sure how the traffic study was done on 2A but if you go there in the morning and watch it coming from Essex through Wilson on 2A have fun it's a from my version of a mini traffic jam and if you're going north in the afternoon I have witnessed this time after time I turn off at Zephyr and I say pretty much every day thank God I'm turning off at Zephyr because from Night Lane up to Mountain View Road the cars are back up and they are crawling I cannot comprehend that a traffic study missed that absolutely critical point now if you add traffic coming and going from Boudry let's be honest the other direction they are going to go down Boudry turn on the Chelsea Place go down to Zephyr either go to the light there or turn the other direction to go to wherever it's just going to happen and I don't think you have to do a traffic study or be an engineer to figure that out it's going to happen it's already happening to us narrow streets in the streets because we are a quiet neighborhood we try to be careful but I'm passionate about this this is going to be an incredible strain on us and I'm not focusing on you I'm focusing on the people that are saying we don't need a stop sign we don't need a three way stop we don't need a traffic light seriously seriously I'm just asking I understand your constraints I totally respect that but I am asking you to pass the word back to respect the neighborhoods that are in place with traffic control with all due respect to the developers and to your position I completely understand your working within your confines but please give that pushback thank you thank you thanks to the public to address the board Zoom participants to raise your hand or let us know in the chat if you'd like to speak Nancy would you want to unmute yourself and you can speak you just type your name and address can you hear me okay yup we can hear you my name is Nancy my husband Scott and I live on 103 Dunmore Lane and And I too would like to express my concerns with the impact of the additional traffic that's going to be dumping on Dunmore Lane as a result of this project. I work from home and my office faces the street and throughout the day I see many people using the sidewalks and road throughout the day. It's a quiet street and it's not uncommon to see young children learning to ride a bike or a scooter. They're not my immediate neighbors and I suspect they use our street because it's quiet and it's safe. And Zephyr is a busy road and our street is probably preferred because of the traffic. There are no street lights on Dunmore. At night it's pitch black and I can't imagine how the additional traffic will maneuver and God forbid an animal tries to cross the street. It's not set up like Zephyr is and I in fact invite you to drive on Dunmore after sunset and see for yourself. I concur with the comments that were given earlier by Carol Laws and I agree and according to the traffic study it's going to increase to one vehicle every two minutes. And I suspect it will be more than that as residents will not favor Baudry Lane or Alpine Lane because Route 2A is a nightmare. And I can see them cutting through because it'll be favorable. And I just hope to God that there isn't a child that's in the way as somebody is speeding down the road trying to get to the other side quick. And I do understand that there was a previous approval for the church and I knew that buying but the impact of the additional traffic is throughout the day and is very different than just peak traffic during service hours. Thank you. Thank you Nancy. Other members of the public that would like to address the board. Seeing no raised hands in Zoom or in person. Okay thank you. DRB members any last questions? I do have questions related to the affordable housing. On the affordable housing you're going to put all of the units that you classify as affordable in A and B or none of the housing units or townhouses will be classified affordable? That's correct. Playing this to put them into the apartment. Thank you. Anything else Dave? Nope that's it. Other members of the DRB any final questions, comments? Chris Snyder and team many final comments or questions? I guess I do have one. Comment number 13 talks about providing a plan for trash receptacles to serve users of the development. Actually comment number 14 locates solid waste containers within the building or within an architectural extension of the apartment. I know this is the preferred location. But the Wilson development bylaws do allow for solid waste containers to be detailed from apartment buildings when they are screened, which we are proposing. So I just wanted to get feedback from the board on comment 14 as well to on the solid waste containers specifically for the multifamily apartment and assistive living facility. In our preference would be to locate those in a separate building similar to what we've had in Anthony crossing. And there's some real rationalization as to why to do that one vehicle access to the trash facilities or pick up to is keeping it away from the buildings. There's there's differing arguments going in building versus out of building and our preferences to have them out of building. And then the third piece is we actually came up with this idea today after reviewing these notes is that, you know, there may be a way to sort of create some by having a separate building. And I realize that because they're maintained and cared for and and, you know, there's no issues, but there may also be something that we can use for bike storage or creating separate bike storage. No, obviously not in the same room as the trash, but you know, by having these separate buildings, right, we have to have public bike storage. How do you have public bike storage and creating those without having separate buildings and so we could incorporate the two. It was just an interesting idea of how to sort of think about some of those things that are a little bit different. So we wouldn't like some feedback on that. And in the one other comment in regards to comment 15 providing a sidewalk on the south side of Alpine Drive from building a to root two way intersection. So we are proposing a 10 foot recreational path on the north side of Alpine Drive from the development to two way south side is really limited by the existing right of way and the existing Alpine Drive road kind of a bus that southern way that's pretty close to that. So I think we'd be okay with extending the sidewalk on the north side of building be south side of Alpine Drive to the property line, which I think staff also mentioned that in their report. And then potentially doing a cross crosswalk over to the north of the recreational path. We're just really limited on on space there to extend the side walk along Alpine Drive on the south side on the south side. Yes, correct. So there's a wreck path on the north side and it's sort of how original permit for the bank entrance to road is right along that right of way line. So just kind of how that got created created a little bit of a challenge on that side. And public works was okay with just when looking at Alpine or when looking at Baudry Lane, they were okay with just the wreck path on one side of the road. They said they didn't necessarily need the sidewalk on the opposite side. I kind of view that as the same here with the wreck path on the north side of the road. If you can get clarification from public works on their needs for sidewalks, that would be great because I don't understand what they need a sidewalk for anyway because they don't use them. It's the people that live here that use them and if they're going to go out and where's the where's the bus stop going to be. And whether you put that in or somebody else does is traffic increases and people want to reduce traffic along 2A, they may need to start riding the bus more and whatnot. And again, the idea of having to cross the road once, go down the bike path and cross it back is, I don't like that. So I like sidewalks on both sides of the road. That's a consistent position I've had for eight years I've been on this board. There are other places very close by here that we require them to put the sidewalk in even though it wasn't very convenient. I think it's a good idea. I think you should try to figure out how to make that happen. That's my opinion. I agree with John on that one. Okay, we'll talk about that in deliberations. Anything else? I wanted to comment on the question about the dumpsters. Okay, go ahead. I don't have strong opinions on that one. Okay. I think that there are arguments for putting it contiguous with the building. I think there's arguments for putting it at this spot or that spot or the next spot. But give me a good design for it. Give me a good rationale of why it is where it is and that it fits into the overall site plan and I'll be fine. I don't have a problem with that. I hate blanket rules. That's one opinion. That's correct. Okay. No. Thank you. Okay. Any other last comments by the applicant? Yeah, just, you know, in terms of the item number one on the information provided by the staff, the boat relaying right of way. And we understand that the DRB cannot and does not have the responsibility to agree or disagree or do whatever because it's the public road specifications. I guess we would ask would the DRB provide a recommendation to allow for the narrower right of way than what's in the... No. That's outside of our ability to influence Chris. We're not going to... We're going to stay silent on that. Okay. Anything else? Only that I concur with you on that last game. I concur. Okay. So we're going to continue DP 21-18 to September 13th. Thank you everyone for participating. Thank you for the feedback. Thank you. Okay. Next up, DP 22-10, 478th Blair Park Road. Who is present from the Africa? We got a stranger back up here. All right. Jeremy and Doug, please introduce yourself for the record, please. I'm Doug Goulet from Trudeau Consulting Engineers. I live for 240 Southridge Road, Williston. And Jeremy Matowski for JC Properties LLC, the landowner and Trudeau Consulting Engineers is also my firm on the owner and president of that organization. 478th Blair Park Business Address. Great. Thank you. And as I did when you were in a few weeks ago, I would like to disclose that Doug and I are neighbors in the Southridge development. I don't view that as a conflict of interest, but I would like to make that disclosure. So with that, Emily, you're up next. That's me. Simon, you're up. Okay. Thank you. So this is a discretionary permit request at 478th Blair Park Road in the Business Park Zoning District for Trudeau's own office site. They're proposing a 5,000 square foot office building, parking and landscaping utilities. This application was heard at the DRB meeting for a pre-application stage on June 14th, 2022. So I imagine it's pretty fresh in people's minds. And everyone's read the reports. I'll sort of focus in on the changes that have been made. The staff is recommending that the DRB take testimony, close the hearing and deliberate tonight, and we are recommending approval of the application. We did receive comments from both Public Works and the Fire Department. These were enclosed at the end of the report. We didn't receive any letters or comment from neighbours, either at the time of mail-out or now. So the site is, the parcel is within the TAF Corners form-based code area. And as Emily mentioned earlier, the slope board's holding hearings on adopting that code at the moment. This DP application was submitted on June 15th, which is one day prior to the hearing being warned on June 16th. And as such it is vested in the old bylaws, the current bylaws, which means the DRB should ignore the form-based code and focus solely on the existing bylaw standards. So the access remains as you saw that group stage, sharing the same access. The applicant did provide the trip generation data that was requested. So that's from additional 8am P trips and 11pm P trips. They provided the parking table that we requested. They are proposing 48 new spaces, which falls within the minimum and maximum limits in the bylaws. They're also proposing six short-term bikes parking spaces, which is compliant along with four long-term spaces within the building and two end-of-trip facilities. And although not a requirement permit, they have got a future conduit shown for charging stations. So the next change has been the solid waste and snow storage, both shown. The solid waste enclosure has been moved to join the garage. As we discussed earlier, the bylaws do prefer solid waste containers within the structure they serve, but they do allow them to be outside of buildings as long as they're not on a pedestrian way and are sufficiently distant from the building's main entrance. And we do think that this location is acceptable. The fire department have requested that it be 30 feet away from any structure, but that's not enforceable under the bylaws, so this location is acceptable. The applicant has added in screening to both this trash enclosure and the HVAC mechanical plant on the western boundary of the building. The proposal was reviewed by the HAC application stage. The building hasn't actually changed since that point. They did find the building to comply with the design review criteria as proposed, but they did recommend some variation in color or material between the two buildings, between the new building and the original building, so that they can read as distinct buildings that are complementary, so we've sort of retained that recommendation as a condition. The applicant has developed their landscaping plan since the pre-application stage to demonstrate compliance with the relevant chapter of the bylaw. So, looking along here, the west buffer has been improved. There's more planting in the sort of southern part of the buffer to meet the requirements. And they've also proposed additional planting. I think there's four extra trees along the sort of front boundary with Blair Park Road to meet that landscape buffer requirement. And they've also made a couple of tweaks just to relocate the gas line and provide screening to the utility box, should it be required. They've also provided a lighting plan. This shows that all the fixture types, total illumination levels, the illumination of the parking lot and the timing and the automatic light dimming on the parking lot can apply. There was a minor notation on the lighting plan that indicated a sort of quarter of the building lights are going to remain on after hours, which doesn't strictly comply with our bylaws. We recommended that that's ironed out under condition to either use motion-activated lighting or demonstrate how they comply with the security requirements of the bylaw. So those are the main points I just wanted to highlight and just say it is recommended for approval. Great. Thank you, Simon. Jeremy and Doug, have you read the proposed conditions of approval and do you have any concerns or any of those items? Would you like to highlight and have a discussion on? We have reviewed them and we're good with them. Having said that, maybe we'll spend a few seconds talking about them. Condition 8 talks about the final plan. She'll address how the lighting will be controlled. As Simon said, there's a note on the lighting plan that said one of the exterior lights would stay on through the course of the evenings. I think that may have been a carryover. We're fine with making all the lights motion sensitive so after dark, they will all go off unless there's a movement underneath their receptive area. With regards to the hat comments, the proposed building is shown as burgundy. Better color, Jeremy. The existing building used to be that similar color but has since been painted sort of a slate gray. So there will be, I think there will be complementary colors but definitely the two buildings will be different colors as recommended by the hack. That was it. Public Works had a number of comments on sewers, sewer connections, sewer details, which I'll show up on sheet C-301. So I'm guessing they may have just missed that sheet which shows all that. Proposed sewers, existing sewers, rims, inverts, everything you need to know. So three, five out of their seven comments are addressed in that one sheet. And as always we'll work with the fire department to try to meet as many of their requests as we can. That was it as far as the loose ends. Okay, very good. DRB members, any questions? I'm good. All set. Last call for questions, DRB. We're done. Okay, Doug and Jeremy, any last thoughts or comments? It's late, I'm sure you guys want to get home so we're good. Okay, I'm going to close DP 22-10 at 9.44. Thank you for coming. Okay, 9.44, we're going to go into deliberative session. Scott, if you could shut down the recording, I'd appreciate it. Blazius? Blazius? Blazius? Blazius. Blazius. Application number HP 22-05, it's to replace the slate roof on the 1840s portion of the house with real slate. In addition, the windows can be replaced by a 6 over 6 white windows with casings and exterior mullions. That's it. Great. Thank you, Scott. Is there a second? Second. John seconds it. Any further discussion? Please indicate yay or nay. Please, Paul Christensen. Yay. John Hemmelgarn. Yay. Scott Riley. Yay. Dave Turner. Yay. Nate Andrews. Yay. The chair is a yay. Six in favor. Now opposed. Motion carries as written or as read by Mr. Riley. Next up is DP 22-10 JC properties for new building at 478 Blair Park. Is there a motion? Yes. As authorized by WDB 6.6.3, I, David Turner moved the Williston Development Review Board, having reviewed the application submitted and all accompanying materials, including the recommendations of the town staff and advisory boards required to comment on this application. By the Williston Development By-law, and having heard and duly considered the testimony presented at public hearing of July 26, 2022, accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law, or DP 22-10, and approve the discretionary permit subject to the conditions of approval above. This approval authorizes the applicant to file final plans, obtain approval of these plans from staff, and then seek administrative permit for the proposed development, which must proceed in strict conformance with the plans on which this approval is based. Thank you, Dave. Is there a second? Second. Paul seconds it. Any further discussion? No. Hearing none, yay or nay. Paul Christensen? Yay. John Hemmelgard? Yay. Scott Riley? Yay. Dave Turner? Yay. Nate Andrews? Yay. Chair Zia, six in favor, none opposed, the motion carries. Is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes of June 28, 2022? I'll make a motion. Scott makes a motion. Is there a second? I'll second it. Dave Turner seconds. Any discussion? No. Hearing none, yay or nay in favor of approving the meeting minutes. The meeting minutes as written. Paul Christensen? Yay. John Hemmelgard? Yay. Scott Riley? Yay. Dave Turner? Yay. Nate Andrews? Yay. Chair Zia, six in favor, none opposed. Minutes are approved. Is there any other business to bring forth tonight? We should keep our annex fundal, right? Yes. Yep. All right. That's all I need. Anything else? Okay, go ahead. I have another question. Okay, go ahead, John. What's the schedule for getting a new member? It's been posted since, you know, the end of June. I don't know if any applicants have applied. Usually if they have questions, Eric boards them to us. So I don't know. Most of our front page forum that ought to get somebody or front court to warm up or whatever they have to call it. Yeah, you can start it with. Any other business for this board? No. Hearing none, is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Is there a second? I'll second it. Any discussion? All those in favor and to keep by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Well, Pete.